2015
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-015-0307-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forces and moments delivered by PET-G aligners to an upper central incisor for labial and palatal translation

Abstract: Manufacturers of PET-G aligners have recommended setup increments of 0.5-1 mm, which appears excessive based on our results. PET-G aligners not featuring modifications (e.g., reinforcing ribs or composite attachments bonded to the teeth) are unsuitable for bodily movement of upper central incisors in labial or palatal directions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
54
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
54
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We estimate that this value approximately corresponds to the suggested relative tooth displacement within single setup steps of 0.5 mm, because in the clinical situation, the elasticity of the periodontal ligaments of both displaced and anchorage teeth leads to smaller relative tooth displacements than those in the setup model. 15 Our results indicate that, even with the thinnest commercially available 0.5-mm aligner, median forces of À7.89 N for the labial and 8.37 N for the palatal displacement would be applied to a maxillary central, resulting in significant overloading of its periodontal structures. In view of this, it seems a remarkable finding of the current study that these forces can be significantly reduced by 35% and 71% when using the novel PET-G foils with a thickness of 0.4 and 0.3 mm, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…We estimate that this value approximately corresponds to the suggested relative tooth displacement within single setup steps of 0.5 mm, because in the clinical situation, the elasticity of the periodontal ligaments of both displaced and anchorage teeth leads to smaller relative tooth displacements than those in the setup model. 15 Our results indicate that, even with the thinnest commercially available 0.5-mm aligner, median forces of À7.89 N for the labial and 8.37 N for the palatal displacement would be applied to a maxillary central, resulting in significant overloading of its periodontal structures. In view of this, it seems a remarkable finding of the current study that these forces can be significantly reduced by 35% and 71% when using the novel PET-G foils with a thickness of 0.4 and 0.3 mm, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…11,13,15 This difference might be explained by use of the opposite-jaw-simulating device in the current study that prevented dislodgment of the aligner from the model. 15 A further interesting finding was the minimal average stiffness difference between the 0.5-mm and 0.625-mm (5%) as well as between the 0.625-mm and 0.75-mm (8%) aligner, which means that the 0.625-mm aligner could be omitted from the current aligner prescription without diminishing the efficiency of treatment. Additionally, because of the form instability of the 0.3-mm aligner, it can be concluded that PET-G aligners of this thickness are not suitable for clinical use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 3 more Smart Citations